From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [skip] > I think he's an idiot,
It's one thing to preach this nonsense to your party zealots for which you no doubt receive much acclaim, but believing their own propaganda is what cost your party power, especially in the last congressional elections. I generally welcome such rhetoric as it exposes the the left for who they really are. > think he's been an unmitigated disaster for the country since the day after > the last election, The "unmitigated disaster" is the result of an internal rot that fermented during the previous administration. What, you think Enron, Anderson, Worldcom, etc. suddenly started up just after GWB took office? Not according to their testimony! It was all glitter and gloss until the house of cards fell apart and was discovered during the initial months of this administration. Speaking of glitter and gloss, how 'bout that agreement President Clinton made with the North Koreans, eh? > If Bush were not President your son would not be in imminent peril of > combat, since Bush and the members of his administration are the main > instigators of this action in the first place. This ex military man worried about combat and so does my son. Nevertheless, this was my job and today it is my son's. We both agree that this is the right thing to do. Your assertion that "Bush and the members of his administration are the main instigators of this action" is false on it's face. Saddam is the instigator of this action. In the last action against him, there were terms of surrender. Saddam agreed to them, the hostilities ceased. Since Saddam has violated and failed to comply with nearly all (if not all) of the terms of surrender, this is actually a continuation of the same action. Saddam is the person responsible for his current predicament and the peril of his people. My son and I both agree that it's time someone has the balls to step up to the plate before the man becomes even more dangerous. During WWII, waiting for Hitler to occupy France and lob V1's and V2's into Britain was not good policy. In those days, there were people like you delaying our entry into the war. That delay is to our shame. > Europe doesn't support it, Really, Contrary to your current view, France and Germany do NOT constitute all of Europe. Britain, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Rumania, Italy, The Czech Republic, Denmark - almost all of Eastern Europe support this action. Get yourself a more current map of Europe and update your education. > the U.N. doesn't support it The UN has made no such decision. They haven't had enough meetings yet to come to no decision. > it's not a response to the attack on the WTC, Nobody says it is. This is simply the job that the UN (and last president) should have done long before this. > the American people don't understand the need for it, The polls say otherwise. I know you think that your view of the world is the only correct one and that since you probably hobnob mostly with people of like mind, you think most folks think like you. Your view is therefore provincial. > and Bush and Rumsfeld won't tell us why want to do it. They have said why. Over and over they've said why. I assume that what you actually mean is that you don't agree that what they have said is sufficient for you. > > So they're about to blow the crap out of Baghdad. How the hell should I know > why they're doing it? Oil? Politics? Warmongering? Too much saber-rattling > to back down now? It's about oil and stability in the entire Middle East. Oil is the fuel of the economies of every developed nation on the face of this planet. We don't want it to possess it, we are most comfortable with many nations owning and trading it. We will not allow a sociopath with power to dominate the Middle East and hold the world hostage. About oil? Damn right! That was Saddam's motive for attacking Iran. It was his motive for attacking Kuwait, and he made no secret of the fact that Kuwait was his stepping stone to Saudi Arabia. This is a man who rallies his people by saying that he has seen himself riding in victory through the gates of Jerusalem and has, in fact, sent rockets into Israeli cities. Now consider Israel. Jane's books on the worlds military estimated some years back that Israel possessed approximately 200 nuclear weapons. We don't need some madman rallying his cause by attacking them again, especially with gas or biologics. If you think Israel will allow themselves to be pushed into the sea, your a fool. If you think we want any chance of nuclear weapons flying in that area in anyone's future, your an even bigger fool. Of course we could just send over a diplomat to get another agreement concerning this with Saddam. Perhaps we could speed things along by using the Clinton administration's treaty with North Korea as a framework. Surely Saddam's record indicates that we wouldn't have any problems similar to the ones we're experiencing with North Korea, eh? > Christ, I have no idea. Then maybe you should do something to end this ignorance. > But whatever the reason is, they're the twits who are putting your son and his friends in peril, not me. There is a peril we signed up for and accept. There is another peril we never signed up for and should never have to endure that comes from the hands of well meaning, but unwise fools. The first mission of the US military is to deter war through it's very presence. Failing that, the secondary mission of the military is to win the war. Right now, the presence of the military is an attempt at the first mission. If you participate in undermining the effectiveness of this presence by doing things that give aid or comfort to Saddam so that he thinks he can avoid the conditions of his surrender, you work against this first mission. This subverts the primary mission and is a peril we did not sign up for. If war happens, similar aid or comfort will lead Saddam and his troops to believe that hanging on until we are unwilling to continue is a good strategy. Such subversion will ultimately cost more lives on both sides. Needless to say, we did not sign up for this peril either. These lessons are from history. Read some. > I have nothing to do with any of it. I certainly hope not, but your rhetoric is all to familiar.
